Other perspectives
I’ve yet to read a review that is critical of the Khalil Greene trade from the Cards’ standpoint. Sure, forests have been destroyed and the Earth’s temperature has been raised 5 degrees w/ the amount of electricity burned discussing Greene’s low OBP, horrendous offensive season last year, and his home/road splits over his career. There is little doubt in my mind that Busch will be friendlier to him than PetCo. How could it not be? Therefore, it’s probably with good reason that the deal appears to be a winner for the Cards.
Here’s what Dave Cameron over at fangraphs has to say:
So, Cardinals fans should expect Greene to be something like a league average defensive shortstop or maybe a tick above. Toss in enough gap power to overcome his low OBP, and St. Louis just picked up a +2 win player for 2009. Considering his salary only values him at just over 1.25 wins, the Cardinals are getting a bargain for their money. Unless the PTBNL in the day is a significant prospect, we’d have to call this a good move for St. Louis – even w/ Greene’s -4 +/- score from 2008.
Here’s Christina Kahrl from Baseball Prospectus:
at $6.5 million for this single season, he's considerably cheaper and potentially significantly better than, say, Jack Wilson, and if he gets hurt (again), you can part company after taking just a single-season flyer on a player who has occasionally been star-worthy.
Greene should be entering his prime, and coming off of a weak season it's possible he's more likely to ink an extension than he was just 12 months ago. If Greene matches his Marcel projection, he'll be worth -15.3 runs offensively, and if he matches his Chone defensive projection he'll be worth 5 runs defensively. Add in the aforementioned positional and replacement level adjustments and Greene is a 1.97 WAR player, that would make him worth nearly 10 million next season. If Greene were to lose 0.3 WAR each season thereafter, he'd be worth roughly 35 million through 2012. And to think, we haven't even addressed moving from PetCo to someplace that almost certainly will make his raw statistics look better. …Odds are, whatever team acquires Greene won't regret it.And R.J.’s buddy, Sky Kalkman – also from BtB – spent a lot of time typing himself hoarse here Thursday arguing the merits of the deal.
To be honest, I have nothing against any of their arguments. To me, there’s not a lot of doubt that Greene is an improvement over Izturis – albeit a relatively small one. I truly believe that Greene will hit better as a Card than he did last year as a Padre. There’s also little doubt in my mind that Greene is at least an average defensive SS and probably slightly above average – despite the -4 he posted last season for John Dewan. Is he worth the $6.5 M the Cards will pay him next season? Almost certainly. Some have bemoaned the transaction by calling him "only average" or complaining that he’s not Rollins, Reyes, Hanley, etc. No, he isn’t any of those things but league-average shortstops have a lot of value in the big leagues and, barring injury, he should solidify the position at least for 2009.
Most believe Greene to be a +2 WAR, or maybe slightly better, for 2009. If so, that puts him in the $9 - $10 M category of value to the team. If we’re getting a $10 M player and paying him $6.5 M – we’re ahead by $3.5 M. It’s hard to argue with that. I should point out, however, that Justin Inaz’s numbers had Izturis as a +2 WAR player last year. If that’s right, and Greene’s a +2 player in 2009, we’ve added more than $3 M to the payroll and added 0 wins to the bottom line. Well-run organizations don’t do that.
Now, I’m a little skeptical that Izturis truly was +2 and as for Greene – well, he’s in his contract year w/ free agency approaching and may be able to get to +3 WAR. Even so, we’re adding at most 2 wins to the team through this deal. It’s unlikely that either Worrell or the other player involved in the deal would have materially impacted the team in ’09 so we’re looking at a 1-2 win improvement (probably) with this deal. Are we now a playoff team? No. I’m not trying to pee in anyone’s Post Toasties this morning, but the improvement – though it’s there – probably isn’t substantial. The good news is that Greene probably bottomed out last year and can’t possibly play any worse. This deal, therefore, is unlikely to hurt us. And, of course, he’s only signed for 1 more year and we can let him move on at the end of the season.
All in all, it’s tough to evaluate this deal until we know who the PTBNL is. Towers says they believe he’s probably better than Worrell but what else is he going to say? -- "We got a reliever who pitched at AAA and who stunk during the cup of coffee he had in the majors and another guy worse than him!" -- I don’t think so. Still, it’s tough to call this a win or a great deal for Mo w/o knowing who the other guy is. But I do believe we’re better off in ’09 at SS w/ Greene than we were w/ Izturis or would’ve been w/ Jack Wilson or Renteria. BTW, for those complaining about the $6.5 M we owe Greene for 1 season – did you see that the Giants gave Renteria $18.5 M for 2 years? Which deal would you rather have? I’ll take Greene, thanks.
My real problem w/ the Greene deal is what we gave up – and I’m not talking about Mark Worrell or the PTBNL. This was a safe move for Mo – not a bold one – and I wanted to see a bold move. We have another 1 year stopgap at short. Kozma and/or Vazquez are still at least 2, and probably 3 years away, from taking the major league SS job. Having Greene for 1 year – which, I’ll acknowledge, is better than Reneteria for 2 – puts another band-aid on the gaping wound that is our SS position. I wanted a bolder move – trading Ankiel or someone else for a young SS. It’s a move for 2009 and, while it doesn’t hurt us beyond ’09 even if Greene fails miserably, it doesn’t help us beyond ’09 either.
As I said, it’s a safe, short-term move and does nothing to answer the question as to who will play shortstop after the ’09 season. That means that we’ll be doing the same thing next offseason -- deciding whether to trade potentially valuable assets for another 1 year stopgap, to sign an Izturis/Adam Everett-type, or to sign an aging vet like Greene to a 4 year deal worth $40M. I have every confidence that Mo won’t get us a lemon again next year, but some teams take chances and make bold moves and the Cards seem to be a team whose front office is afraid to make a mistake, so we end up w/ OK/pretty good players when we could be trying to acquire really good players. It looks we’ll lose Ankiel to free agency when we could have traded this asset for another this offseason. Next offseason will probably be the right time to trade Ludwick for a younger, cheaper, more valuable asset. Will we take advantage of that asset and sell high for a younger, cheaper asset w/ a higher upside or at a more premium position? If the pattern holds, we won’t. We’ll still have a pretty good player but we will have passed on the opportunity – though risky, I’ll admit – to acquire a potentially great player.
The best-run organizations take chances and make bold moves and sometimes they don’t work out. Offering arbitration to Springer and Looper might not have worked out, but they were opportunities whose costs were very low and benefits very high. The Cards were too risk-averse there and missed an opportunity. Will the decision materially hurt the team? No, but they missed out on an opportunity to materially improve the team. Same thing here. We’ve got a pretty good SS for ’09 signed to a pretty good contract and we can probably do the same thing next offseason. But we’ve got assets we could have tried to trade for Reid Brignac or Brandon Wood or Yunel Escobar. It might not have happened or those players might eventually fail or maybe end up being no better than Khalil Greene. But they’re all younger and cheaper and have more upside, and instead of having 1 of them in ’09 and 2010 and 2011 we’ll have Greene or his clone for those years at a much higher salary. It’s ok. He’s better than Izturis. He’ll add a win or two to the bottom line and that’s not nothing. He’ll be more than worth his salary. To me, though, it’s just underwhelming.
3 recs |
172 comments
Comments
typetypitytype
but some teams take chances and make bold moves and the Cards seem to be a team whose front office is afraid to make a mistake, so we end up w/ OK/pretty good players when we could be trying to acquire really good players.
thank you, this is exactly what ive been trying to say for a couple days now
www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D
by jealousblues on Dec 6, 2008 7:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
good versus great
I too would like a great player at every position but that is not realistic. What Mo is doing is realistic – it’s called living within a budget, a very different thing than having your druthers at each position
As for acquiring younger potential stars at ss or anywhere, I see two problems – I see other GMS being very reluctant (as in asking for the moon) for anything remotely qualifying as such…………and, I do not see TLR ever agreeing to take a flyer on a non-proven veteran in his everyday lineup
All in all, barring a surprise in the ptbnl (which I doubt)………fantastic trade……Mo continues to rise
by Hinkster on Dec 6, 2008 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A modification to what you wrote:
The best-run organizations take chances and make bold moves
The best-run organizations take THE RIGHT chances.
There is no “chance” to be taken out there on a shortstop this year that looks “right.” Every last one on the market has something about him that’s scary, whether it’s an injury history, age, excessive salary. Under these conditions a conservative, low-risk (and still possibly high-return) strategy to papering over the MI problem looks fine to me.
Now let’s see if Mo is able to use the salary headroom generated by this move to take “the right chance” on a pitcher.
by StanTheManFan on Dec 6, 2008 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
they've already said they have no plans to go after Johnson
and declined to offer Looper arbitration, despite Derrick Goold’s pronouncement that the Cards are still interested in Looper. Signing Randy Wolf to a 3/30 deal would be “the wrong chance.” Offering Johnson a 1 year, $9 M deal or offering Looper arbitration would have been taking “the right chance.”
by chuckb on Dec 6, 2008 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I want an
explanation on the lack of interest in Johnson. One could make a case that he is the within the top realm of starting pitchers available, and he comes on a one year deal. I see no reason not to have significant interest.
Acquire Boof Bonser. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
by Dave Barry on Dec 6, 2008 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
my guess is too much money
though that wouldn’t explain the interest in Pettitte who, almost certainly, will get more than Johnson. And Pettitte has 0 chance of playing for the Cards next year. I don’t get it at all. If we’re in the market for a starter, Johnson for $9 M is better than Looper for $7.5. If we’re going to go w/ Boggs and try Carpenter, then we’re not in the market for a starter. And signing Johnson is infinitely better than signing Randy Wolf.
by chuckb on Dec 6, 2008 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No Long Term Deals
We have a chance to get two pitchers (pettitte/johnson) on one year deals. That is infinitely better than signing Randy Wolf to 3 years.
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
or explain
The lohse Contract, @7.125M next season. Really, look at the peripherals and tell me johnson will not be 1.27X better than Loshe next year( a number to justify 9 million).
Acquire Boof Bonser. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
by Dave Barry on Dec 6, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
Why arent the Cards in on Randy Johnson? He makes so much sense. 1yr 9-12 million for a pticher who threw 180+ innings with 170+ strikeouts last year. Since moving back to the NL in 2007 he has posted era+ of 123 and 117. Do not have to commit long term to him as you would have to do, for say, AJ Burnett (some desperate GM is going to give him 5 years!), CC, Sheets, etc. Am i missing something? What is the downside?
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it really doesn't make sense
but maybe they have already heard that he isn’t interested in what Mo has to offer, and therefore the Cards say they have no plans to go after Johnson. I know I am reaching here, but since Mo seems to like keeping things quiet, maybe something like this is the case?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Dec 6, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why doesnt it make sense?
not being wise just curious to hear your point of view.
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 10:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He needs 211 strikeouts to reach 5000, and wants to get there next year.
We all know Duncan hates strikeouts.
"I'm as nauseous as I've ever been. I have a terrible headache. My head is pounding. I feel like throwing up and I'm having trouble swallowing. And the beauty of it is, you want to feel like this every day." - Tony LaRussa
by adiueordie on Dec 6, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats the answer...
he is not pitch to contact. maybe when he is 49, the cards will be intersted. Then he might be pitch to contact.
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I smell the Duncan factor, too
but there are plenty of “on the other hand”s to this dynamic as well. I do have to believe that Mo has gotten the word that Randy is not interested in playing in St Louis in ‘09 … via a channel, that is, which evades discovery by the press. Johnson has never been gabby, or an attention hog.
And it’s too bad it won’t happen because I think St Louis would be great for him. I think it would be like a full year version of Chuck Finley. And I think the fans would absolutely adore him.
It might have nothing to do with Duncan… maybe the humidity, the culture of the midwest. After all, how much would Duncan even try to, or be able to, micro-manage a pitcher of Johnson’s stature and successful experience?
by the Tewk on Dec 6, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tony needs another hero too
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
because the players listed that are long term were never on our radar anyways?
He’s said to be targeting younger with upside. Randy/Andy are fall back options, not just for us but clearly for other teams as well.
I don’t think anyone has said that Johnson wasn’t worth it, just that this early in the market maybe you can get something better or for longer.
if I were a GM I wouldn’t even really press on 1/2 year FA until after winter meetings where trades may be developed or after the market gets set and players start moving.
We commit 9-12 million now and someone else becomes avail, what are we going to do? Nothing because we’re committed.
If we end up with a “Wells” while Johnson is avail, that’s one thing. But Johnson or bust isn’t a good idea this early.
Though, I’d love to have RJ anyday.
One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.
by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 6, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So Mo
says he would like to chase after a young starter with upside, i’m a proponent of boof bonser, but there’s really little chance he, or any other available starter matches what johnson did last year
Acquire Boof Bonser. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
by Dave Barry on Dec 6, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Young SS
See, this is what I don’t get…….
Everyone seems to think just because you trade Lud or Ank for a young SS, it means the SS must start on the big league team. What if you could get an absolute stud who is 20 years old and most likely needs at least 1.5 more years in the minors? I would be fine with that I guess………..
So people need to realize trading for a stud SS does not mean that stud must be in the show right away. Just play Brendan Ryan at SS for a season, he is not very good but he is not awful either. His defense should add value like Izturis.
by ICbirdfan on Dec 6, 2008 11:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Kozma's ready in 3 years
and we trade for a young SS who’s 1 1/2 years away, who plays SS for the next 1 1/2 years and then what do you do w/ your young SS when Kozma’s ready? Sure, it’s a possibility but it’s not like (prior to the Greene deal) we were set at SS for the next year and a half. For that matter, who plays SS in 2010? It’ll be another band-aid. It’s ok but, in the long-run, we’re not really solving any problems. We’re only patching over the ones we have. At some point, we need to buy new good tires for this machine rather than continuing to spray fix-a-flat on the same holes.
by chuckb on Dec 6, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
me, personally
I’m damn fine with bandaids for a year or two at SS if they’re going to cost around 3m for each WAR.
Now, it’s not to say that they will in the future and I’ll give that, but at the end of it all I would rather be under leveraged than over leveraged.
One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.
by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 6, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not difficult.
You trade Koz for something useful elsewhere. It’s not like Koz promises to be a “stud SS;” “adequate” is more like it. That has value, in the absence of anything “studly” at the major-league level or affordable via trade or free-agent signing. But if a “stud SS” appears in the system, Koz is exactly the kind of player you don’t mind using as a trading chip.
by StanTheManFan on Dec 6, 2008 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who is to say.....
Mo didn’t go after some of those young SS’s? Who’s to say he didn’t get shot down by the other teams? That is my guess as to how it played out. We know Atlanta wanted pitching first, which they got for Escobar. No telling what the Angels are doing, but you don’t hear much about Woods being available. And I get the feeling TB covets Brignac moreso then other teams would. Wanting a bold move, and a young SS is one thing. Smartly going about any such deal is another.
I’m going to wait and see what happens with 2B. If we can get a quality player there, I think we’ve gone a long ways in improving the team.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
by SoonerfanTU on Dec 6, 2008 9:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
2b
I too would love an upgrade at 2b but here’s how I see that playing out
1) Mo tests the market on AK and gets little interest – even with Cards eating salary
2) Cards choose between 1) keeping AK or 2) trading him for an single A prospect, eating the salary and signing Flo
3) I seriously doubt we’ll see any major move otherwise at 2b – too many other expensive areas (SP) to address
by Hinkster on Dec 6, 2008 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To me, this makes the most sense:
The D-Backs are interested in Kennedy (why an offensive challenged ballclub wants and offensive challenged second baseman I have no idea), so you trade him to Arizona and eat $2M of his salary. You bring back Miles next season at around what he made this year, and Ryan/Barden become the utility players since either of them can play both positions.
I don’t think that this is an “upgrade” for next year, but you do end up freeing up $2M of payroll that could be used to help acquire a vet closer or a scrapheap starter.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Dec 6, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sounds good to me
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What does AZ have available in trade that we might want?
I don’t think they’d trade hot prospect Jarrod Parker for anything as humdrum as AK, and there’s nothing else in their system that looks complementary to the gaps in our own.
by StanTheManFan on Dec 6, 2008 9:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How does that free up 2M of salary? Kennedy is 4M, so if we eat half we’re on the hook for 2M. Miles was paid 1.4M in 2008 – and would presumably want more in 2009 – but even at his original rates 1/2 Kennedy + 2008 Miles = 3.4M, or 600k less than Kennedy. Minor league utility backups still have to be paid the league minimum, too.
by astrostl on Dec 7, 2008 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
because you forgot to add miles into the equation
so if things go as of right now Kennedy + miles = 6million -2mil Kennedy – 2mil for miles = 2million left over
by bearcatcardfan on Dec 7, 2008 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fourstick suggested ditching Kennedy – eating 2M of it – and signing Miles.
As of right now Miles is still not a 2009 Cardinal, and his salary to become one is unknown.
So the pre-change is still 4M, and the post-change would involve Miles per the posted suggestion. Your change would have 2M sunk, 2M in hand, and no second baseman!
by astrostl on Dec 7, 2008 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ummmm...
As far as I know Escobar hasn’t been traded
by eglasier on Dec 6, 2008 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he must have meant Lillibridge
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Dec 6, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm neither excited nor underwhelmed
Soonerfan and I will very rarely see eye to eye, but who is to say Mo didn’t pursue all the options and Greene was the best deal he could find?
Still waiting for that PTBNL to be named before I really judge. I don’t get the people who are overly excited about this deal, I don’t get those who are upset about the deal. And I don’t think ever in the history of time has there ever been so much ink on Khalil Greene. :-)
Amaury translates into "Punisher of Spheroids" in the lost tongue of Atlantis. Marti means "Belgian Waffle." www.futureredbirds.net
by erik on Dec 6, 2008 10:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm all in favor of
landing a young developing high-ceiling SS from some other organization and doing it with bold trading, and a lot of other fans are too, but in the best evidence-based fashion, why don’t those of you who really study this draw up a list of maybe 6 guys in that category and put it out there for all of us to see and track? Then we can keep an eye on them and see if they are actually traded anywhere, and for what. Until that happens we can’t judge the degree of the Cardinals’ caution. What if none of those target guys end up being traded in 2009? IOW, you’re damning the front office for playing it safe without any real metric for what constitutes “safe.”
First, I’d bet my left arm that the Cards’ valuations of assets like Ankiel, Luddy, etc., is much higher, possibly dramatically higher, than those of most if not all other ML teams. Would you trade your “future” at SS for Rick Ankiel if you were running the Angels, Braves, Yankees, Indians, Dodgers or Mariners? I’m don’t think I would, especially if my team were in a tight payroll situation or if I felt pressure on my job.
You very well might be right, but my point is that none of us are ML GMs, and though we try to think like them, we can’t think like them and we can’t know all of the factors involved in every potential transaction. I’d like to get through ST and see where we stand, and then compare Moz’s performance to those of other GMs in this market, before prounouncing judgment. (To be fair to you, I should say that I have been disappointed with the Cardinals’ caution in recent years, so I do understand the frustration, and I am afraid of being frustrated again. But let’s wait until the train is all the way in the station.)
by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 6, 2008 10:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
yeah
I see Ludwick and/or Ankiel as high risk trades, if I’m the GM of another team. I’ll be surprised if either of those guys are traded
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Another thought on Worrell
It was probably difficult for Mo to trade one of his favorite players. He did beat Orta to the bag you know. Besides, Worrell must be at least 50 by now.
by Hinkster on Dec 6, 2008 10:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Dekinger will make a comeback, too
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Dec 7, 2008 6:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
more on what goes on in between Khalil's ears
Amaury translates into "Punisher of Spheroids" in the lost tongue of Atlantis. Marti means "Belgian Waffle." www.futureredbirds.net
by erik on Dec 6, 2008 10:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Khalil
Spent a few days in 2007 in SD and found myself very interested in Khalil – his game,his bat, his glove, his approach, his name and his background
As no one recalls, I predicted that Eck would most forget Edgar – which, for the most part, he did (especially 2006). With that tip of cap to self, here’s my prediction for Khalil
Khalil will have a bounceback year in 2009, be very popular with fans and even develop his own Spicoli sub-culture.
Ultimately, the combination of Key West influence, a man of faith (unusual branch) and willingness to be his own man and speak his mind will not play well with TLR. Either TLR or both will be gone in 2010.
by Hinkster on Dec 6, 2008 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"will not play well with TLR"
I kind of think the opposite. The guys that have clashed the most with Tony are hard headed guys who don’t want to hear an opinion contradictory of their own (much like Tony himself). The more introspective guys who have played for Tony, anecdotally (to me), have done well.
(Ir)regardless, you’re probalbly right, Greene won’t be here in ’010 and the middle infield carousel will continue.
hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit
by Alxfritz on Dec 6, 2008 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kahlil Green
Why would he not get a long with Tony?
He is quite, focused (some say overly), and wants to succeed………
Tell me how this does not mesh with TLR.
by ICbirdfan on Dec 6, 2008 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you're asking me,
I don’t have an answer. Because I agree with you.
hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit
by Alxfritz on Dec 6, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
is he quite focused
or quiet and focused?
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Our country reeks of trees. Our yaks are really large. And they smell like rotting beef carcasses. And we have to clean up after them. And our saddle sores are the best. We proudly wear women's clothing. While searing sand blows up our skirts.
And the buzzards, they soar overhead. And poisonous snakes will devour us whole. Our bones will bleach in the sun. And we will probably go to hell. And that is our great reward. For be-ing the-uh Ro-yal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen!
by Tackle Box on Dec 6, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Tony sees
this or this from Greene, he’ll love him.
However, Greene will be gone, one way or another, after ’09.
by chuckb on Dec 6, 2008 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I had a feeling
the first link would be to a story of Khalil saving a drowning puppy from a raging flooded river in Southern California and the second would be a picture of Khalil performing in a stage performance of Hansel And Gretel where all proceeds went towards battered women and the local humane society.
Our country reeks of trees. Our yaks are really large. And they smell like rotting beef carcasses. And we have to clean up after them. And our saddle sores are the best. We proudly wear women's clothing. While searing sand blows up our skirts.
And the buzzards, they soar overhead. And poisonous snakes will devour us whole. Our bones will bleach in the sun. And we will probably go to hell. And that is our great reward. For be-ing the-uh Ro-yal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen!
by Tackle Box on Dec 6, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there was supposed to be a "make" between "would" and "most."
That’s my interpretation.
by tom s. on Dec 6, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you say niner?
Were you talking from a walkie talkie?
defy, cards, defy. hey logic --- you suck.
by effin fisk on Dec 6, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no
it was cordless.
"It is easy to be brave from a safe distance." - Aesop
by OKCardsfan on Dec 6, 2008 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
shut up, Richard
Amaury translates into "Punisher of Spheroids" in the lost tongue of Atlantis. Marti means "Belgian Waffle." www.futureredbirds.net
by erik on Dec 7, 2008 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“and that he was as good as out against a two-strike breaking ball thrown low and away.”
-great, we have another Ankiel! j/k
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well said
and……….you can take the right risk now and then…..but not at every position……..as mentioned in other post, I don’t see Cards getting very creative at 2b either
by Hinkster on Dec 6, 2008 10:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Moves in a vacuum
I like this deal. From a value standpoint I think Mo improved the team without giving up anything that would have been useful to the team this year. In addition, it’s a short term commitment, and I’m a big fan of that. Mo continues to add payroll flexibilty to the roster. Now with the money saved so far this offseason, I would very much like to see a more expensive/significant upgrade to the roster somewhere. I’m not sure that is possible with the options on the market currently though. But before you view this low risk move, we need to see what else is done this off season. Judging it solely on it’s own merits it appears to be a good deal, and it has the potential to allow for more to happen this offseason.
As to it being another short term fix, that is true, and long term fixes are always better than a short term fix. However, perhaps, this offseason it is necessary for the short term, and next year is the long term answer. Just off the top of my head, next season the cards will have 11mil for Glaus, 6.5 for Greene, 7.5 for Pinero, 2.5 for franklin, whatever arb salary Ankiel wins, 4 for kennedy if we can’t move him, all coming off the books. A lot of those holes have the potential to be plugged by the system. 3rd will be filled by Freese/wallace/craig, perhaps one of those guys moves to OF which fills another hole. Boggs/Garcia/Todd could fill the pinero hole, and the bullpen is full of young arms. That leaves about 30 mil available next offseason, without trading from any of our positions of strength. There is a lot of flexibility being built into the roster. It looks like Mo is preparing the franchise to leverage that opportunity, while still improving the team in the short run. I’ve been very impressed with Mo to this point and trust his very capable abilities.
by stickman179 on Dec 6, 2008 10:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree BUT
Mo isn’t Kenny Williams. Most GMs aren’t.
I think it’s better to evaluate the need for a bold move after all the moves are done. If the bold move is to swap Ankiel and Kennedy for some stud 2nd baseman or to acquire a great pitcher, we won’t be complaining.
I’m waiting to see the total picture.
by sdrone on Dec 6, 2008 10:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
That's not a bold move
waiting until everyone else has made all their other moves and then dumping a 2B no one wants and a FA OF’er is just smart baseball and only Josh Towers would fall for something like that.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 6, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I question whether this move will really improve the Cardinals
offensively and defensively in 2009.
This move does not improve the Cardinals pitching woes and we all know that last season, the reason the Cards weren’t playing in October was pitching issues. As Chuck said, this move, alone, likely does not make the Cards a playoff team.
In the absence of other moves, the real value of the move (particularly if Greene performs as well as many seem to believe he will) may be in the opportunity presented to the Cardinals at the trade deadline. If Mo wasn’t to make big and bold moves, the opportunity will be to do was few are willing in July of 2009. If the Cards aren’t realistically in contention, then it is time to start trading players like Greene and Ankiel. 2009 cannot and should not be a repeat of 2007, when Jocketty foolishly stuck his head in the ground and refused to improve the club’s talent base.
by JMedwick on Dec 6, 2008 11:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
sure
we could get 2008 Khalil Greene, but on the upside, we could get 2007 Greene… pretty hard to say, we just have to say what is most likely to happen
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but golly, Mr Medwick, sir,
didn’t Jocketty bring back Miguel Cairo for the September surge in 2007 ?
by the Tewk on Dec 7, 2008 8:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the move on a lot of fronts.
Obviously this guy has more upside than the recent occupants of the position and that’s always intriguing. When you match up his life time ops with other shortstops he compares very well and he could improve that considerably in a different ball park. I’ll take it on faith that his glove is as good as advertised because, frankly, although I must have seen him play many times, I don’t remember him.
Finally I find his back ground very interesting. As Hinkster said though he sounds like a guy that TLR will just hate and it’s unlikely that both will be here in a couple of years.
By the way I’m an older codger and have know idea who Spicoli is and how he relates to Khalil. Can anybody enlighten me?
by easy on Dec 6, 2008 11:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
TLR
will either love him or hate him…I don’t see much room for middle ground on this one.
by cardsgirl95 on Dec 6, 2008 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he just won't talk to him
we’ve now heard of three players he rarely even spoke to.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 6, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Spicoli
(played by Sean Penn) was the quintessential “stoner” in the movie, “Fast Times At Ridgemont High”. For us codgers, think the early Zonker Harris from “Doonesbury”.
However, Tim Sullivan’s article would indicate that Greene is the opposite of the laid-back surfer dude; directing his intensity inward. Perhaps a dose of Hitting According To Albert (hit the ball hard in the gaps, and the homers will come) will help Greene reach his offensive potential.
At least all those ground balls won’t go into left field now; there’s a shortstop standing in the way!
"In this game, don't nobody know nuthin' about nuthin'." -- attributed to Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra
by The Ol Goaler on Dec 6, 2008 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Spicoli
You are correct, Khalil is evidently not a Spicoli – he only looks like one and has lived in places that produce Spicolis……….so, what actor/celebrity/nickname fits and an intellectual, spiritual, health conscious, independent thinking athlete, with Clemson influence who spent time in SD, looks like Spicoli and hangs out in Key West?
Jimmy Buffet
with discussions like these, it must be early December
by Hinkster on Dec 6, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe he's more of a hesher type
than a Spicoli type
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
or he's hessian
"I'm as nauseous as I've ever been. I have a terrible headache. My head is pounding. I feel like throwing up and I'm having trouble swallowing. And the beauty of it is, you want to feel like this every day." - Tony LaRussa
by adiueordie on Dec 6, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
SUNSHINE!
From Remember the Titans.
by flipthebird on Dec 6, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On the Remember the Titans note
It’s at least a little disturbing to me how hot Hayden Panettiere (the football crazy daughter) turned out now that she’s older.
Not afraid to nitpick
by joker24 on Dec 6, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+ or -
as has been said, seems hard to evaluate the greene deal in and of itself. we don’t know what other trade options are/were out there. what we do know is that no one in the organization was really ready to take the job and that iz2 could have probably have resigned for about 1/2 of greene’s money. so to me the real issue is: is putting 3+M$ more into ss with kg better than resigning iz2 and putting that 3+M$ into another player. i will say, however, that i am with those who feel the edgar gamble would have been unwise. it is crustal ball season, just mo’s is clear.
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
by sportsman on Dec 6, 2008 11:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Still have bullets in the chamber
Had to disagree with chuckb’s complaint that JMo is not being bold enough. That he is going about a good team instead of taking some risks that could result in potentially great team. If Khalil has a monster 2009, would the Cards even pony up the money to resign his if it is Renteria money? They have always scrimped on middle infielders for whatever reason.
However, I think it’s a bit premature to dog JMo. His best signing last season was Kyle Lohse, a huge bargain at the 11th hour. JMo has been hoarding salary and prospects. If he unloads Kennedy, we’ll still need a 2nd baseman. There is also a need for a starter although the team could go with McClellan holding down a rotation spot until Carpenter is ready (hopefully ready). How will JMo use the available teams to fill these positions? Let’s see how it goes down. The hotstove season becomes painfully long when your team misses the playoffs.
by jjray on Dec 6, 2008 11:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm not dogging Mo
I don’t know why people get that idea. The only move he’s made that, to this point, could be even considered a bad move was waiting too long to pull the trigger on Anthony Reyes and ending up w/ nothing. I suppose you could criticize him for the Lohse extension but it’s not horrible and it’s difficult to argue it is. The Lohse signing last spring, the Glaus deal were good ones (as I said) and the Greene trade is an upgrade. It’s just that, IMO, they’re being too safe. We’re more than 1-2 wins away from winning the division and this trade does nothing for the team beyond ’09.
by chuckb on Dec 6, 2008 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
I think we are closer than you think to winning the division. It would help if Mo would sign another starter – Randy Johnson.
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if we are
1-2 wins away, the Greene trade was the best move. We’re simply not that close. We were 11.5 games behind the Cubs last year and that number’s not a mirage. We were 11.5 pythagorean wins behind them as well. We need improvements at 2B, the pen, and the 5th starter spot just to get close. And, again, this deal does nothing for the team beyond ‘09. We got a win or two closer, and that’s fine, but we’re a win or 2 further away in 2010 and 2011.
by chuckb on Dec 6, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
first, i think
the cubs are poised for a slip. that 11 game margin is daunting but i dont think the cubs win 97 games again. With that being said, i think the cards can expect better pitching out of their bullpen. the bullpen will be better with motte, perez, and kinney pitching a full season. plus, we wont have to endure flores or jimenez. you’re right about 2nd base. we will have to endure another sub 700 to 700 OPS year from AK. Getting a full season from aw will also help. I like aw, lohse, welly in the top 3 spots of the rotation. i also would like johnson to be the 4th starter and then the 5th starter coming from the rest and if that one pitcher we have can be healthy or productive, the sky’s the limit. In short, I like the Cards chances this year.
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what have the clubs lost that makes you think they cant win at least 97 games?
aside from wood, who they feel they have a cheaper replacement for I’m sure theyre thinking they are making solid additions. A full season of Harden – obviously dependent on health and the potential to add Peavy if they desire or even Brian Roberts. I think they could be better next year.
by rlgosnell on Dec 6, 2008 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
they lost Bobby Howry
oh no! fuku will probably have a little bit better of a year, theriot not as good. soriano may not be hurt, and derek lee is due for a bit better year offensively. they will probably stumble out of the gates though, since they blew it. While I don’t see them winning 97 games again (unless the brewers are horrible), now that I think about it, the Cubs will not be all that different
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that's assuming
nobody gets injured. Outside of Soriano, they have been pretty healthy (especially on the pitching side) the last two years. Maybe it’s karma paying them back for Wood and Prior, but they seemed due for a regression of sorts on the injury front (I believe the Cards took the torch from them three years ago).
hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit
by Alxfritz on Dec 6, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lee
Why is Lee due for a resurgence? His power has been tailing off since his monster year in 05. He slugged 390 after the all star break and 462 for the year. He has been slipping and their were talks of the Cubs looking to move him.
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just guessing
he could very well not have one
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lee won't "resurge" (is that a word?)
Because you can’t “resurge” towards something you are not. That year and a half period where he was hitting everything that came within a foot of the strikezone roughly 450 feet was not Derek Lee. He is now, what he was in Florida. A high average, opposite field hitter with marginal power who will often rope a fastball that’s in the wrong place.
His defense should improve, but he is what he is with the bat. Although I’m not sure what to make of all the GIDPs and strike outs (especially the one’s looking). If it were just one of ‘em, I wouldn’t think much, but both sky-rocketed. Although, I think Lee was distracted last season with the health of his daughter, and that situation isn’t going to improve any time soon but he might get better at dealing with it.
Our country reeks of trees. Our yaks are really large. And they smell like rotting beef carcasses. And we have to clean up after them. And our saddle sores are the best. We proudly wear women's clothing. While searing sand blows up our skirts.
And the buzzards, they soar overhead. And poisonous snakes will devour us whole. Our bones will bleach in the sun. And we will probably go to hell. And that is our great reward. For be-ing the-uh Ro-yal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen!
by Tackle Box on Dec 6, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that I should have clarified my comments a bit
I was mainly thinking he would have to improve over last year, considering he had a TON of ground into double plays, and Ks.
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
why would we assume
a full season from Josh Kinney? We hope for one, to be sure, but the man has 32 IP over 3 seasons. Assuming he’ll give us 75 this year is a ginormous leap of faith.
by chuckb on Dec 6, 2008 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cubs
I will provide a longer answer in a moment. What do you think their Vegas o/u will be? Im guessing 94 or 95. i know this is FAR from an exact science and is a not well thought out argument but 97 wins is due for a regression, I believe.
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cubs
I think the Cubs got very good years from Fontenot and Derosa which I dont think they will repeat. Fontenot’s OPS was 909 in 2008. In 2007 it was 738. I dont see him repeating his 2008 season. His highest OPS in the minors was 825 in AAA as a 26yr old. Derosa is going to be 34 heading into the year. Old by no means but not a spring chicken either. The last 2 years Soriano had been battling injuries and is heading into his 33? year old season (i recall there being an issue with his birth certificate). Derek Lee has been regressing and will continue to do so in his age 33 season. Seems that wrist injury has devastated his power. They lose edmonds. On the surface maybe not a major loss but his bat was huge for them last year. He slugged 568 and his OBP was 360 while in Chicago. He was incredible. They are planning on replacing him with Fukodome. There is going to be a huge drop off in offense. The cubs outfield is shaky. Rather than going after Peavy I would be trying to upgrade there.
As you wrote, Harden is dependent upon health. We all know the injury history. No need to write it again. I think counting on him is foolish. Dempster had a career last year, in a contract year, in his age 31 season. Can he repeat it? Sure, but would i bet on it? Not a chance. The loss of Wood will hurt. I dont think Gregg is very good and Marmol has never closed before. Marmol can be rattled.
Bottom line is, I think the Cubs are due for a regression. I would project their win total to be closer to 90 than 100.
Last thing, the Cards obviously have as many if not more questions than the Cubs but they will all work out because im a cards fan.
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re Roberts or Peavy
I hope they do trade for one of them. Their farm system is thin and they have several backloaded contracts. Not offering Wood arbitration obviously means they are trying to cut payroll. Their core is aging quickly. They should be solid next year but their future looks bleak, IMHO.
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they can trade for Peavy
meaning, they have the pieces to get it done, they probably should. As you said, their window is closing and it makes more sense for them to make that deal than for us to do it. I’m not sure Roberts improves them that much. They’ve already got DeRosa and Fontenot. How many wins does Roberts add? Peavy probably adds 3-4 over Marquis and would give them a potentially dominant playoff rotation.
by chuckb on Dec 6, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Due for a regression"? No kidding.
It’s interesting to compare BP’s PECOTA projections for various Cubbies to the way they actually did, and see what percentile of their PECOTAs they achieved. First the hitters:
A. Ramirez: 65th
Soto: 90th
DeRosa: 85th
Soriano: 62nd or so
D. Lee: 42nd or so — slight underperformance, but not bad
Theriot: 88th
Fontenot: 80th
JEd: 90th
R. Johnson: 85th
Fukudome: 6th (OK, so every rule has exceptions…)
Then the pitchers:
Dempster: >90th
Zambrano: 51st
Lilly: 75th
Harden: 60th
Marmol: >90th
Marquis: 70th
Wood: >90th
Marshall: 58th
Howry: 10th or so… again, rules with exceptions…
Even acknowledging that the guys who get the most innings tend to overperform (after all, that’s why the get the innings and their underperforming competitors don’t), that’s quite a string of overperformers. Neither Chicago nor St. Louis should base their off-season strategy on the assumption that that will continue.
by StanTheManFan on Dec 6, 2008 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Great info, Stan.
Wow, Dempster really out performed his PECOTA projection. Reading over at bcb, they were saying he worked his ass off in the offseason prior to 08, which coincidentally was a contract year. Maybe he turned a corner professionally. I just wouldnt bet on it. The other guys, JED, Fontenot, Theriot are not surprising.
by njnick on Dec 6, 2008 10:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the kind words. For comparison:
The Cardinals numbers. First, for batters with >200 plate appearances:
AP: 85th (but he ALWAYS outperforms his prediction…)
Lud: >90th
Santa: 78th or so
Ank: 67th
Schu: >90th
Yadi: 80th
Miles: >90th
AK: 70th
Iz2: 75th
Dunc: 20th
Ryan: 25th
Then pitchers (40 innings minimum):
Lohse: 85th
Welle: >90th
WW: 63rd (!)
Loop: 82nd
Springer: 80th
Franklin: 80th
K-Mac: 70th
Perez: 48th
Pinata: 46th
Villone: 45th
Thompson: 43rd
Izzy: 15th
A few other pitchers with (mercifully) fewer than 40 IP:
Flores: 30th
Jimenez: 25th
Boggs: <10th
These may be off by a point or two (I had to do them manually), but the message is clear: Our guys generally overperformed too — except for the bullpen. If you believe in PECOTA (and it’s about the best predictive system I know of), the real question is not so much “how can we get better relievers?” as “why do the relievers we have do so badly?” I find that question thought-provoking…
by StanTheManFan on Dec 6, 2008 11:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's hard to judge the cubs based on their line in Vegas
Since Vegas knows there are lots and lots of cub fans who love to bet every single year that this year “It’s Gonna Happen”. It usually artificially inflates their number of wins predicted by Vegas.
Our country reeks of trees. Our yaks are really large. And they smell like rotting beef carcasses. And we have to clean up after them. And our saddle sores are the best. We proudly wear women's clothing. While searing sand blows up our skirts.
And the buzzards, they soar overhead. And poisonous snakes will devour us whole. Our bones will bleach in the sun. And we will probably go to hell. And that is our great reward. For be-ing the-uh Ro-yal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen!
by Tackle Box on Dec 6, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't be so sensitive Chuck, just discussion
NM
by jjray on Dec 6, 2008 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not being overly sensitive
it’s just that, overall, I think this was an ok, pretty good deal. A few people have believed me to be dogging Mo and I’m not. I’m just saying it was ok and pretty good and not as good a deal as it could’ve been. At some point we’re really going to have to address this SS situation and we really haven’t …yet. It may be until Kozma’s ready that we address it.
It’s certainly better than signing Edgar to a long-term deal or trading for Bobby Crosby.
by chuckb on Dec 6, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Chuckb
I don’t know why people take your post as being negative about MO?
You put it exactly how the deal is… Pretty good one year deal. However at sometime someone is going to have to step up from the minors to be a long term SS, or the Cards are going to have to trade a “impact” MLB or minor league player to get a long term SS solution..
I know this is looking ahead, but what would people think about trading Wallace after next season? What if he keeps progressing like he has. How much value does a 1B have as no team is going to trade with the idea that he is a 3B.
by ICbirdfan on Dec 6, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that is quite the assumption
how do we know no team will trade with the idea he is a 3B? There have definitely been terrible 3B over the years in MLB that have more than made up for it with their bats.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Dec 6, 2008 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it sounded negative to Moz
because Chuck demands a more risky move, rather that playing it conservatively for the time being. it’s almost as if chuckb is saying Moz doesn’t have the cajones to pull off a significant upgrade trade.
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It does?
I questioned his manhood? Wow. I thought I was just being negative, now I’ve emasculated him. I’ve written far more critical pieces than this one. Maybe it’s not me who’s being sensitive here.
by chuckb on Dec 7, 2008 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with everything you said dude
i don’t think it was overly critical at all. i think you nailed it on the head. so far he’s been very safe. nothing wrong with that, but at some point you gotta roll the dice & take a chance. i think it’s gonna happen this next season&it will blow all our minds
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Dec 7, 2008 12:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think we are all missing, the point
To be sure, this was not a “bold” move….it was, however, a smart move…and more importantly its a move that shows Mo can play with the big boys…i find it hard to believe that with all the teams looking for SS’s, towers couldn’t have found a better deal than this if he had wanted to(i know, i depends on the ptbnl)…that to me says that Mo got in there an quietly and quickly convinced towers this was the best deal…it solved what most fans percieved was the cards biggest weakness, and did it cheaply…that is good business no matter how you look at it
by VolsnCards5 on Dec 6, 2008 12:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm not missing the point...
it absolutely did not solve the Cards’ biggest weakness, and perhaps that there is the point. It put a band-aid on the Cards’ biggest weakness. That weakness is still there and will be evident in 2010 and 2011. It’s like paying off 1 credit card w/ another credit card and saying we’ve solved our debt problems. No, we’ve just pushed it back 1 year. That debt is still there and at some point, we’re going to have to pay it off.
by chuckb on Dec 6, 2008 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think its possible that chuckb is feeling what some of us are feeling
As he stated above, this team is more than a Khalil Greene away from the playoffs next year. The team under Mo has shown the ability to make solid low risk moderate reward moves – Lohse, Greene, Wellemeyer. Those moves are all seemingly ‘smart’ and have positive impact on the team but do they offer sginificant upgrade or impact? Probably not. If the Cubs get Peavy and we add Boggs – how does that improve our chances of making the playoffs? the 2006 season is a once in a lifetime season and frankly we were stupid lucky to win it all. Most talk around here of the Astros is deservedly wretched, but was this team really better than them last year? These Greene-type deals are great if your team is in Boston or NY or Chicago and your sustaining a pennant run, but we are trying to become a pennant contender and to do that sometimes you have to go out on a limb and add IMPACT talent.
by rlgosnell on Dec 6, 2008 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
significant upgrade or impact signings/trades
let’s not forget this organization has been operating, for the past few years, under the unfavorable position of back-ended heavy contracts belonging to poor performing/injured/difficult to trade/clogging the budget guys like Edmonds, Rolen, Enc and Carpenter……………..its not like Mo was sitting on his hands with and extra $50M to spend…………we’ve had some serious financial handcuffs thanks to unfortunate contracts that didn’t seem too bad at the time
by Hinkster on Dec 6, 2008 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well said, snell
www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D
by jealousblues on Dec 6, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm one of those critical of this
post, but I’m not disagreeing about the need for bold upgrades to the team. I think chuckb makes an assumption that there are bold moves out there to be made, and I’m not willing to make that assumption just yet. Teams are just incredibly protective of good prospects now, to a degree I’ve never seen in 35 years of watching baseball. I’d also like to hear some proposals. My idea of “bold” is to talk about trading Molina, Wainwright, McClellan, Perez, Rasmus, etc. (I would add Albert to that list but I think the proper adjective for that trade would be “suicidal,” as in, here come the fans with pitchforks). Many fans would consider trading Ank or Luddy as “bold,” but as I stated above, I just don’t believe other GMs value those 2 guys as highly as we do. Is that the kind of trade you’re talking about?
by MdRedbirdFreak on Dec 6, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but he did solve it
his number one job is to field a team for 2009…look i’m all for make moves for the future, but getting a young cost-controlled ss is not an easy thing to do…ankiel alone would not get it done, it would take more pieces(read: top prospects)…so this was a great and smart deal in this market
yes it was a band-aid…but it was an extra-strength, waterproof, bandaid that won’t lose its stickiness and won’t hurt like hell when we pull it off in a year
by VolsnCards5 on Dec 6, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess if the team is entirely
short-term focused, he solved the problem. If we’re at all concerned about what happens post-2009, he did not. If that’s the case, however, why would he have given Wainwright a long-term deal last season? He was under the team’s control and increased the short-run salary in order to save a couple of million in the last years of the deal. That’s inconsistent w/ your idea that we now have a solution to the SS problem.
You’ll agree, I suppose, that we’ll have a SS problem next offseason, right?
by chuckb on Dec 6, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yea of course
my point is we now have filled a hole for 2009, thus fixing the shortstop problem…i realize this does not fix us beyond this year
i would have loved to have gotten a young cost-controlled shortstop, but apparently that wasn’t going to happen without giving up a ton(i don’t think ankiel+ b-level prospect would have gotten escobar or either of the rays shortstops…anything more would have hurt us more in the future, imho)
i say its smart, because he didnt pay renteria 9 million per year for 2 years or give furcal a ridiculous deal, he got a guy who will probably be worth more than we are paying him
its not a bold move, but it is a smart one
and i think the team does have to meld the short-term and the long term…i’d rather trade for a pitcher that will be cost-controlled and under team control(i believe there are more of those types available, again maybe i’m wrong)
having said all of this…if this is the only “big” move Mo makes, then he should be held accountable for not being bold enough
by VolsnCards5 on Dec 6, 2008 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
to me the biggest weakness
is still the bulllpen/closer. I don’t want to experience again the horror that was the 4-game Brewers series last year.
by phesto on Dec 6, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry, as I mentioned.....brain and computer slow today
meant to type “Eck would make most forget Edgar”…..as in, upon the signing, I thought Eck was a perfect fit for Stl and would become very popular and successful
by Hinkster on Dec 6, 2008 1:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
okay........I'm an idiot today
the above was intended as a response to Hardcore question above
by Hinkster on Dec 6, 2008 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe this trade is actually just a rouse to get Tyler Greene into Major League games with no one being the wiser
by rlgosnell on Dec 6, 2008 1:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Tyler Greene
Though TLR is not above a ruse………..I suspect TLR has given little if any thought to Tyler Greene as an 09 major leaguer
by Hinkster on Dec 6, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
that this analysis is really based on very little evidence. Of course everybody would love to see “bold moves” for young cost controlled players, but come on, i’m pretty sure every GM would love to do that. Only Mo and other GMs know what was available. From the sounds of the rumors, it seems like he tried to make a deal involving ludwick for yunel escobar, but the braves were only willing to give up kelly johnson. No deal. Good move by Mo (i like how his nickname is the same as the abbreviation for missouri). If I were to characterize his approach to building a roster, i would say he tries to maintain flexibility. that’s been the key word since day one. I think that gives the farm system the best opportunity to show its worth and keeps the payroll low over the medium term. Plus, in this case, Atlanta needed pitching and decided to deal from a surplus of young SS to get it. Hence, when lilbridge was traded, it sent a signal to the cards to pull the trigger on this trade.
I’m not going to go ahead and give this trade my blessing because any and every trade can come back to haunt a team. There’s just too much uncertainty. However, I’m encouraged by what i’ve seen from the Cardinals’ front office in terms of setting the team up to make the said “bold moves” when it’s absolutely necessary. In terms of what a “well-run” organization does, I think this platonic model of a baseball team wouldn’t pay clunky, rusty parts (joel and adam kennedy, i’m looking at you) inordinate amounts of money and would find out ways to streamline. That’s what MO is doing. I’m quite pleased with that strategy and I believe it’s the one well-run organizations should adopt.
by spencegrif on Dec 6, 2008 1:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
to follow along w/ chuckb's analysis,
we are now at a point where some of the biggest questions are answered for next year. We are certainly a starter short, but that seems like a FA issue, not a trade. We have got this far w/o losing any major prospects.
This says that Mo, in addition to keeping his ear to the ground for a bargain starter and bullpen help (another leftie, a top-notch closer), probably most needs to look at serious help on the 2b front. Not just any kind of help — young, talented, long-term help. The other Johnson (Kelly), Brian Roberts, or Dan Uggla (I know some of you cringe at that name, but yes) all need to be carefully looked at for trade purposes. We have some substantial excess talent that can be exchanged, and a few targets with potential trade partners. I would much rather see this kind of big move or no move (with the money redirected to a better starter or top-shelf closer) than more patchwork at 2b.
My hope is that Mo sees this and knows that he can’t stake the 2009 future on finding the young talented 2b AND the young, talented SS of his dreams this offseason. Patchwork on one will hopefully allow solid work on the other.
by tom s. on Dec 6, 2008 2:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i still think
tampa bay is our best trade partner, and kc after that. tampa needs a good outfielder and they might take a floridian like ankiel + for bartlett (plays 2nd for one year) and sony or jackson. kc is looking to dump their more experienced, more expensive outfielders and could use a replacement at first as well. room there for mahay or even greinke if we included boggs or another ml ready pitcher.
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
by sportsman on Dec 6, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
KC just traded for a more
experienced and more expensive OF in Crisp, and just traded for another first baseman in Jacobs. Would KC really be willing to give up 2 years of Greinke for what I am guessing is Ankiel and Boggs or another L ready pitcher? No doubt they could get a lot more for Greinke than that.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Dec 6, 2008 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
forgot about jacobs, sorry
but crisp being in is true, but they are looking to lose teahan and guillen, which still leaves them short.
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
by sportsman on Dec 6, 2008 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think it is pretty easy to forget about Jacobs
and I think any GM would be looking to get rid of Guillen. KC may need some outfielders by the time the season starts, but I just doubt we could get Greinke for anything short of a Ludwick or Rasmus package. Now if they would take Schumaker for one of those good minor league arms…I would b okay with that.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Dec 6, 2008 9:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No. The Royals have zero plans to give up Greinke.
He is their franchise player. They are attempting to lock him down long term. It would take an offer they couldn’t refuse-and KC is not in a situation where they have to move payroll. Oh, and their owner is part of the Wal Mart family, which is one of the few businesses that are going strong. Greinke is part of why they paid Meche so much money—they wanted a youngish veteran to stabilize their rotation while Greinke made his ascent to the top of the rotation.
They have said repeatedly that he is unavailable. I believe them. They might trade you Brian Bannister though…….they might trade Mahay. If the Royals were smart, and occasionally they are, they would use Mahay at the deadline.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
by jillsinmo on Dec 7, 2008 7:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tommy Herr's Not Coming Through That Door, Bruce Sutter's Not Walking Through That Door
We haven’t had a seriously top notch second baseman on both off/def in God knows how long (has it really been since ‘87? Someone correct me if I’m wrong).
I still think a top notch closer is the biggest priority, then a second baseman on the trade front, with starter help from free agency. FRod would be ideal, but that’s not gonna happen in this lifetime.
"Wherever you go, there you are" - Buckaroo Bonzai
by brik on Dec 6, 2008 3:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I can't speak for Deshield's defense
but he was a legit offensive player in ’98.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 6, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Grudz was pretty legit both offensively and defensively.
Our country reeks of trees. Our yaks are really large. And they smell like rotting beef carcasses. And we have to clean up after them. And our saddle sores are the best. We proudly wear women's clothing. While searing sand blows up our skirts.
And the buzzards, they soar overhead. And poisonous snakes will devour us whole. Our bones will bleach in the sun. And we will probably go to hell. And that is our great reward. For be-ing the-uh Ro-yal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen!
by Tackle Box on Dec 6, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Grudz
is rather overrated by the fan base now. I liked him, but my memory of his stay is much better than what Baseball-ref tells me.
Ditto with Herr. Besides a stellar 1985 (123 OPS+), his o stats were rather pedestrian.
hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit
by Alxfritz on Dec 6, 2008 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Herr Doctor
I do agree, outside of the incredible 1985, his performance was ordinary, especially compared to that of his contemporary in the same division, Ryne Sandberg.
But Herr has such sentimental value…kinda like your first girlfriend. You gotta rid of her for a damn good reason, but you always look back on her with pleasant memories, anyway.
"Wherever you go, there you are" - Buckaroo Bonzai
by brik on Dec 6, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Herr
will always be near the top of my all-time favorite Cardinals list. Is it just me or does everyone that grew up watching the early and mid-80s Cardinal teams feel the same way?
Yeah, he was so-so with the bat outside of the 85 season, but he had a great glove, and hell, the Seat Cushion night was one of the best games I ever watched.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Dec 6, 2008 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Funny thing is
Most statistical measures seem to think he was a rather average fielder at best, at least from the perspective of range. That’s certainly not the way I remember him, but when memories and statistical measures clash, that’s an indication that a more careful view is needed.
I’d take a reincarnated, 30-year-old Herr over AK or Floppy, though.
by StanTheManFan on Dec 6, 2008 9:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bring Back Herr
Statistics don’t always tell the whole story (lame argument, I know). Tommy Herr was very beloved member of the Whitey Herzog era. When he was traded in 88 it sucked worse than opening underwear on Christmas morning. Only thing worse was (A) it was for Tom Brunansky, and (B) it was to the Twins, the team the beat the Redbirds just mere months earlier in the World Series. The words “salt” and “wound” were heard all over Cardinal Nation.
Still, Tommy Herr in his prime on this Cardinal team? Damn, I’d take him in a new york minute (make that st. louis minute, don’t need wally backman)
"Wherever you go, there you are" - Buckaroo Bonzai
by brik on Dec 6, 2008 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I was originally going to write about Grudz until I realized his numbers were no better than Vina’s best year.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 6, 2008 11:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That '85 performance was classic
overachieving for 3 months and living off of it. He was Ty Cobb in April and May then became Tommy Herr again.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 6, 2008 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At least it got him an All-Star Game
I’ll never forget the ugly white shoes he wore in the Metrodome that year, and the strikeout in his first plate appearance as an all-star. First, and only, if I’m not mistaken.
"Wherever you go, there you are" - Buckaroo Bonzai
by brik on Dec 6, 2008 11:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Bold"
I’m of the opinion that the bold moves that are mistakes can sometimes cripple your team for years to come.
I would rather have the five years of league average shortstops than the Zito contract.
Also see the Rangers and their history with Boras clients.
by rivercityredbird on Dec 6, 2008 3:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
the Zito contract
wasn’t bold, it was stupid. If you think I was calling for something like the Zito contract then you haven’t read much of my stuff. Come up w/ a better comparison next time. Sheesh!
by chuckb on Dec 7, 2008 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As I See The Greene Trade
it seems to me that Greene IS a young high end prospect. First, he is young and was rushed to the majors by S.D. Most developing players would have just been up from AAA for a couple of years at most. But S.D. was opening Petco Park and wanted to create excitement in the fan base. They rushed him and a kid named Burroughs and in the process may well have put way too much pressure on Kahlil. What if moving to a much better baseball environment spurs him on to his potential. Most likely he will bat seventh. He’ll be following much much better players in the lineup and his performance will not make or break the team. If he gets off to a good start, he may well be open (like Lohse) to extending his contract. If he performs to his potential he could hold down the position for years. Only giving up players that will probably not break into our lineup seems like a good gamble. I think Moe wins big time on this one considering the alternatives. Yes maybe Furcal has a much greater upside, but if he is on the disabled list he is not effective.
victim of the sixties
by victim of the sixties on Dec 6, 2008 3:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
was orlando cabrera going for more $ than furcal
I wonder
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with Cabrera
is he costs a 1st round pick while Furcal doesn’t but requires a bigger payout.
Btw, Cabrera is getting so little interest right from other teams, he’s recently talked about taking the White Sox arbitration offer to which Kenny Williams responded by saying “thats fine, but Ramirez is going to be our shortstop and one of our rookies is going to play 2nd. If Orlando wants to take the arb offer, he can take it, sit the bench and then shop himself as a free-agent next off-season”.
Orlando’s world is a shit storm right now. The Sox won’t play him and other teams won’t give up a 1st round pick to sign him.
Our country reeks of trees. Our yaks are really large. And they smell like rotting beef carcasses. And we have to clean up after them. And our saddle sores are the best. We proudly wear women's clothing. While searing sand blows up our skirts.
And the buzzards, they soar overhead. And poisonous snakes will devour us whole. Our bones will bleach in the sun. And we will probably go to hell. And that is our great reward. For be-ing the-uh Ro-yal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen!
by Tackle Box on Dec 6, 2008 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we still shoulda done it
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 6, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Give up our first round pick for Orlando Cabrera?
Uh. No f’n way. I don’t know what the draft pick equivelant of Worrell and PTBNL translates to, but I’d much rather trade Worrell and the ptbnl for 1 year of Greene at 6.5 Mil than to trade a 1st round pick for 2 or 3 years of Orland Cabrera which would cost around 8 mil per year since you’d have to at least come close to what he’d get in arbitration. (If you wait it out, you might get him on a one year deal, but that’s not what he’s looking for right now and he’s not worth it to take the risk of completely losing out and you still lose a first round pick.)
Plus, Cabrera’s 34 years old.
Honestly, there’s nothing about signing Orlando Cabrera, IMO, that is attractive (and it seems most GMs feel the same way). The years, the money, his age, the draft pick compensation, etc. all equal “Bad Idea Jeans” to me.
That is, unless I’m misinterpreting you someway and you think we should have done something else that I’m missing right now.
Our country reeks of trees. Our yaks are really large. And they smell like rotting beef carcasses. And we have to clean up after them. And our saddle sores are the best. We proudly wear women's clothing. While searing sand blows up our skirts.
And the buzzards, they soar overhead. And poisonous snakes will devour us whole. Our bones will bleach in the sun. And we will probably go to hell. And that is our great reward. For be-ing the-uh Ro-yal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen!
by Tackle Box on Dec 6, 2008 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not really
I just think the guy needs a little more attention… who knows what could have been worked out, especially if he’s aware of his situation
this line is dedicated to '09
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 7, 2008 6:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's going to be 29 next year
and Lohse was open to extended his contract because he was offered a market value contract.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 6, 2008 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MGL – Mitchel Lichtman, creator of Ultimate Zone Rating and (still?) statistical consultant to the Cardinals seems to think it was well above market value: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/sabermetric_moves_of_the_2009_pre_season/#3
I have him projected an 1.5 WAR next year, 1.2 after that, then .9, and then .6.
That comes out to a fair contract of about 4/22. 4/41 is ugly.
Your point still stands, though. I’d have taken it if I were Lohse!
by astrostl on Dec 6, 2008 7:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I just meant he got a Carlos Silva
deal which is what utter potential, constant underachieving pitchers seem to be getting.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 6, 2008 11:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I agree about the potential for K green to get an extensiom w/ our beloved team. Say he puts up a line like 2007 for us. We’d all be clamoring for a new deal wouldn’t we? What makes me think that its extremely possible is the fact that Glaus’ 12 mil will come off the payroll next year w/ take your pick replacing him at 3rd. And there’s your contract money for Khalil. Maybe thats simpleminded and I’m totally open to tyler green or pete kozma having incredible pujolsian breakouts that demand they be put on the opening day roster 2010 but how likely is that? Hopefully they offer arbitration to Troy though right? ;)
Just had a thought there. What would a package of Ankiel and Glaus bring in trade? Just a thought.
by Walking Underwear on Dec 6, 2008 9:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I won't be
he’ll be 30 and will get something along the lines of 4 years and $48 M. I won’t want to pay that. He’s not a $12M a year player now and certainly won’t be when he’s 33.
by chuckb on Dec 7, 2008 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Think of a GM in terms of poker players.
Sure, going all in – and winning – can be exhilarating. But to walk away a winner, you’ve got to win some small and medium pots, too. Using a consistent, intelligent strategy is the surest path to victory in poker and in baseball.
by spants on Dec 6, 2008 4:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
To add to your analogy if I may..
You also have to consider your EV and opportunity costs. If you pot commit your bankroll early, even if it appears you’re ahead in the odds then you risk no flexibility in the hands yet to come.
One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.
by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 6, 2008 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
meaning – if you rush a pot because you believe your pocket kings are the best hand, and it turns out your not you may be forced to play a lot more marginal hands later in the tourney because you have less to commit.
Greene would be (to me) a 4x BB bet on the river that would either lose, or win but because we didn’t commit too much to the pot, regardless of the result we can continue to play and play in a way that suits us.
One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.
by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 6, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because we didn't
screw ourselves by taking the risk.
by spants on Dec 6, 2008 10:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Edgar
seems to be setting a pace on the SS market. If that’s the case, this market is absurd.
The numbers that has been rumored into Furcal’s next deal seem to be just as absurd. The years and amount for that big of a risk is clearly something we shouldn’t be getting into.
Who else is there that would give us a more long term solution while costing us either money, or pieces of our glut (rhp, of)?
We’re not getting HRam, Rollings, Tulo, etc. Trading for JJ would be near impossible. Escobar is avail, and we’ve been rumored in talks, but we have no idea the cost and Ludwick or Ludwick + may be considered bold, but wouldn’t be an automatic win in the trade.
You can’t judge more of the same until you see what Iz gets..
I would much rather not be bold and consider this a temp fix than pay Furcal or Edgar and be committed there.
One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.
by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 6, 2008 4:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
is Escobar still available?
The Braves may have made their MIF trade for the season
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Dec 6, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
true
I didn’t mean is avail, I meant was avail (and may still be if they got a stop gap in return).
One Century down, next on its way. Cardinals '09 : Preserving the Cubs tradition.
by AdjustedExpectations on Dec 6, 2008 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He was available
as part of a package for Jake Peavy (allegedly). I don’t think the Cards had what it would take to get Escobar from the Braves.
Our country reeks of trees. Our yaks are really large. And they smell like rotting beef carcasses. And we have to clean up after them. And our saddle sores are the best. We proudly wear women's clothing. While searing sand blows up our skirts.
And the buzzards, they soar overhead. And poisonous snakes will devour us whole. Our bones will bleach in the sun. And we will probably go to hell. And that is our great reward. For be-ing the-uh Ro-yal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen!
by Tackle Box on Dec 6, 2008 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cards front office afraid?
The Cardinals front office has been, what I call prudent. I like the Greene trade a lot better than signing one of the over priced free agents. Sure all good organizations take chances at times, usually when your team is 1 or 2 players from the World Series. I see the Greene trade as more of 1 of the moves that puts your organization in a position to make a big move. Let’s remember, it’s still early yet. I am watching closely to see what other moves Mo makes. I give Mo a BIG THUMBS up on this trade.
by bigmotors on Dec 6, 2008 4:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Nice post
sums up my feelings well: pretty good, but underwhelming. But the fact that its underwhelming might prove to be a good thing if Mo’s next move proves to be a bigger one.
And i can’t help but feel similarly to this trade as i did to the Kennedy trade (which i won’t go into again since I posted those thoughts yesterday).
defy, cards, defy. hey logic --- you suck.
by effin fisk on Dec 6, 2008 4:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
personally,
I am just fine with band-aids and stopgaps, especially if they are of K. Greene quality. Izturis was a one-dimensional player who played a (underappreciated) role on last year’s team. As was the plan, the FO said thanks and see ya later after this season to Izturis. The probability that Greene leaves next year is decent, especially if he performs as we are expecting him to and the market for SS that can field first, then hit is as lucrative as it is this year (Renteria at 9/year, ridiculous).
Perhaps the stopgaps and fill-ins are just the bridge that everyone is looking for to our own SS prospects. Maybe Mo believes in if not T. Greene, then Kozma, Vazquez, Solano, et al, to grow and be the long-term solution(s). The names Wood, Brignac, Rodriguez, and others have been brought up as the young, talented, long-term solutions. Is the cost of acquiring these prospects/rookies in our own prospects greater than the cost of signing average free agents to fill the hole til the ordained successors arrive?
"Little League Baseball is a very good thing because it keeps parents off the streets." -Yogi Berra
by jacksonian on Dec 6, 2008 4:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Cardinals Mis-management of future short stops runs deep.
Joe Frog; my 18 year old 2008 short stop; Just finished his first full year at Memphis. Where he lead the Redbirds to a Championship. He also lead the Texas League in Batting average; RBIs; Doubles; and SLUGGING. So what does the Cardinal Brass due durring the off season? The sign Izturis to a 3 year deal and release the Texas League Allstar short-stop.
WTF Mo?
by Evilfrog on Dec 6, 2008 9:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
yeah, well
in baseball mogul, brendan ryan turns into an mvp candidate about half the time. It’s so sad that TLR destroyed his career over a pair of sunglasses…
god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs
by SleepyCA on Dec 6, 2008 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Joe Mather hits 50 HRs in 2010
according to my modded copy of MVP 2005.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 6, 2008 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that's not all that unrealistic, though.
I could see it happening next year, with a little luck and assuming someone hypnotizes TLR, to get him playing time while batting second in the lineup. And of course that assumes Skip and at least one of ankiel, rasmus, or luwick is traded this off-season, and Duncan can’t play. And it assumes we don’t sign Lopez to play LF.
Then again, I’m high on Joey Bombs. He actually might not have 50HR power, even if he plays every day.
Won’t EVER happen in baseball mogul, though, since they didn’t even make him available on the AAA team. And Colby won’t be ready until 2011, at best.
/pet peeve about a silly, super-cheap game that is funner to play than I make it sound
god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs
by SleepyCA on Dec 6, 2008 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ehh..
Can someone explain why Khalil Greene cannot be the long-term? Sure he could still suck, but if he does well, I would think an extension is in order, unless 50 XBH from your SS is unnecessary.
Escobar isn’t getting traded, none of the Angels shorstops are any good and let’s not even start on the extremely overrated Brent Lillibridge.
by tito1 on Dec 6, 2008 11:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Lopez listing
There is security in the fact that the last posting on a longish thread doesn’t get read much, so I can just give my cowboy opinion. Namely, I look at the Greene trade as a “one down, three to go” development.
The four ’don’t want back’s I had for the winter included It2, Kennedy, Lopez and Interestinghausen.
With one in the bin, I am sprouting on the Izzy situation, hoping that is a foregone conclusion… but even there I will believe it when I see it.
AK and Floppy are still nail-biters, tho, interrupting my sleep, dreading the knock on my chamber door in the form of seeing a story that we have signed Felipe, and the even more insidious ‘no news is bad news’ situation with Kennedy.
- What I just found humorous (and I can’t assess whether it is disturbing, or encouraging, or just a clerical fluke) is that if you go to view the stats and profile of F. Lopez on the MBL site, he is listed as a left-fielder. But he has played all of 17 games in the outfield his entire career, 13 starts, all in ‘08. Does MLB know something I don’t?
I hope so, because I think he would be more attractive to other teams as a 4th OF and less to us.
by the Tewk on Dec 7, 2008 10:00 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
no mo flo
i.e., neither floppy or rflo
floppy in particular because he wants multi year and has done nothing to suggest his performance over multiple years will be worth a hill of frijoles. like lohse, however, i expect he will end up on a one year deal somewhere sometime in march. if so, i wonder if some players (particularly fringe ones) will seek a second opinion before letting boras run their careers/lives?
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
by sportsman on Dec 7, 2008 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're getting a "rec"
simply because I’ve never heard anyone ever say Interestinghausen. Maybe it slipped by me at some point, but I’ve seen it now and that’s just funny.
Our country reeks of trees. Our yaks are really large. And they smell like rotting beef carcasses. And we have to clean up after them. And our saddle sores are the best. We proudly wear women's clothing. While searing sand blows up our skirts.
And the buzzards, they soar overhead. And poisonous snakes will devour us whole. Our bones will bleach in the sun. And we will probably go to hell. And that is our great reward. For be-ing the-uh Ro-yal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen!
by Tackle Box on Dec 7, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
he is getting another one
just for reminding me of The Raven.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Dec 7, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
with a name like Khalil
you’ve got to be a baller :)
by FSUSOM on Dec 7, 2008 10:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 

















